Why is this game not more popular?

[callihn 10]

In my opinion what is killing it more than anything is it's mod support of lack thereof should I say, what I mean by that is that a stock install with the latest patches is close to worthless since most servers have at least one mod and you can't download them from the server, instead you get a cryptic message telling you about files your missing, at which time you have to Google until your blue in the face to figure out what mod you need to get those files.

Further you can not sort servers by mods or search them, nor choose to show only the unmodded ones, you also can not choose to short by VOIP enabled, so often it gets frustrating to find a server you may like, because even though gaming has been waiting since the 80s for in game VOIP, now that it's here you still have servers that say if your going to fly you need to join their TS or Vent server, requiring a third party app for something that's already included is wasteful.

There is also the complication with BASIC mission editing, for example, perhaps you just want to add some more things to an existing MPmission, you have to figure out how to unpack a .pbo file, using a third party tool no less, then you have to figure out how to get the mission into the editor, I'll stop there because that's where I'm sitting at the moment.

Then you have nice maps like Podagorsk with no missions availible.

Last, but certainly not least there is the texture ripping and tearing on certain ATI cards, I'm still trying to figure that one out myself.

Those are the main issues I've found, but I really like the game and would like to see it doing better myself, but I just don't see that happening until at least some of those things are addressed.

Hope that answers your questions.

Also, I forgot to mention the minimal performance most people get with hardware that is either mostly above or completely above minimum specs, to each his/her own, but I expect more than DVD framerates with the minimum specs, if that means they need to be listed higher then I can deal with that.

Edited February 16, 2010 by callihn
Forgot the whole performance issue

[Bulldogs 10]

Agreed. While you've got things like Yoma's Addon Sync that allows you to download mods from the server you play on, not many servers actually use it.

It would be very handy if there was a way to at least sort servers by mods in use and mod version.

[bangtail 0]

Agreed. While you've got things like Yoma's Addon Sync that allows you to download mods from the server you play on, not many servers actually use it.

It would be very handy if there was a way to at least sort servers by mods in use and mod version.

This has definitely been a problem for pubs since the days of OFP. It really needs to be part of the game as opposed to a mod.

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 PM ----------

Also, I forgot to mention the minimal performance most people get with hardware that is either mostly above or completely above minimum specs, to each his/her own, but I expect more than DVD framerates with the minimum specs, if that means they need to be listed higher then I can deal with that.

I have always thought the box specs were ambitious with regards to ArmA 2.

Minimum spec essentially means the absolute minimum that will run the game at a low resolution with everything on low detail and it doesn't mean it is going to run that well.

It's a marketing decision at the end of the day. Basically, Minimum spec = "how close can we cut it before the game just won't run at all".

Edited February 16, 2010 by BangTail
Clarity

[galzohar 31]

If you have any experience with any computer games you should know that the "minimum requirements" specified by the game company are completely meaningless (well they do mean that if you have less than that you can forget about playing, but they don't mean that if you have the minimum you'll have any fun).

Arma 2 is no different on that aspect. In fact it is pretty much the same as other games: minimum = less than that and forget about running the game at all, and recommended = what you need to have at least *some* kind of fun with the game.

[Bulldogs 10]

The one thing they need to do is to look at the "optimum" or "recommended" requirements, because in most games (Arma 2 being one of those culprits) the recommended requirements will get you semi-ok performance on medium to low settings.

[bangtail 0]

If you have any experience with any computer games you should know that the "minimum requirements" specified by the game company are completely meaningless (well they do mean that if you have less than that you can forget about playing, but they don't mean that if you have the minimum you'll have any fun).

Arma 2 is no different on that aspect. In fact it is pretty much the same as other games: minimum = less than that and forget about running the game at all, and recommended = what you need to have at least *some* kind of fun with the game.

That was my point, having the minimum spec shouldn't lead you to purchase the game and if you do, expectations should be lowered non existent.

Edited February 16, 2010 by BangTail

[Pulverizer 1]

Arma2 system requirements decoded:

Optimal System = Bordering playable on smaller missions, with graphics set to Very Low.

Recommended System = Bare minimum required to boot a mission. Shit runs, but with extreme video lag.

Minimum System = Absolute minimum required to get into the main menu. Won't actually play any missions in real time.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Arma2 system requirements decoded:

Optimal System = Bordering playable on smaller missions, with graphics set to Very Low.

Recommended System = Bare minimum required to boot a mission. Shit runs, but with extreme video lag.

Minimum System = Absolute minimum required to get into the main menu. Won't actually play any missions in real time.

Stop overreacting, my game is easily playable on a system thats somewhere between minimum and recommended.

[Pulverizer 1]

Stop overreacting, my game is easily playable on a system thats somewhere between minimum and recommended.

These things are very subjective of course. I play a lot of other, actually well-programmed games, so naturally I'm rather unamused by Arma2's pathetic performance. It looks like ass, yet runs like shit. No two ways around it. And my system is well above "optimal requirements".

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

I've been playing on my POS since launch and no problems on high/very high.

Athlon x2 245 Overclocked to 3.5Ghz

Nvidia 9800GTX overclocked

4 Gig Ram

32Gig SSD (arma2 only thing that lives on it.)

1920x1080 Rez HDMI monitor.

Windows 7 64bit.

Pulls a constant 30fps.

Also about mods. Look, there is PLENTY of articles, forums, instructions as well as utilities to load the mods. I haven't typed in a mod string since day one of launch. Even before with Arma....

Armaholic houses most, and if the server you want on doesn't have it posted on Armaholic, they usually have it on their website for download. With Yoma's latest addonsync, you don't need to download the mods from their server, just tell it to launch with equal mods.

It's so easy, even a caveman can do it.

and Pulverizer, post your dxdiag txt file, and I can virtually guarantee to find something out of date, not needed, or something holding your system back. So, how many fps do you require?

Edited February 16, 2010 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[Guest]

Bah. I know people running less than 256mb video memory, 1GB RAM, and the worst CPU in history, and even they can run MINIMUM...

It's when you start bumping shit up to the highest that you need the beast pc.

[An Fiach 10]

These things are very subjective of course. I play a lot of other, actually well-programmed games, so naturally I'm rather unamused by Arma2's pathetic performance. It looks like ass, yet runs like shit. No two ways around it. And my system is well above "optimal requirements".

Your PC must suck as much as your attitude.

---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

Bah. I know people running less than 256mb video memory, 1GB RAM, and the worst CPU in history, and even they can run MINIMUM...

It's when you start bumping shit up to the highest that you need the beast pc.

My brother can run it on his laptop with a 1.8Ghz processor, though as would be expected it doesn't run well.

[dmarkwick 261]

These things are very subjective of course. I play a lot of other, actually well-programmed games, so naturally I'm rather unamused by Arma2's pathetic performance. It looks like ass, yet runs like shit. No two ways around it. And my system is well above "optimal requirements".

There are very good reasons why so-called "well-programmed" games appear to run better, and that's because they're only running half-assed :)

I mean, fair enough, if you really think non player-centric processing is a simple waste of processing, then yes, it's "well-programmed" ;) but, that's the essence of ArmA2.

[Pulverizer 1]

Your PC must suck as much as your attitude.

Correct: Neither suck at all. Sure it ain't a beastly machine, but hey, at least it runs most games and simulators just fine without having to dial them down to looking like something a Voodoo2 would've been embarrassed to output.

[Guest]

Your PC must have serious issues mate, my PC is very, very far from top spec nowadays, and just look at the results I can pump out.

Even low end PC's will run Arma 2.

I sincerely hope that you didn't run COD on max, and then stick in Arma 2 and assume it would run just as well with all settings highest?

Think of it like when crysis first came out. For it's time, the graphics exceed everything. Just like Arma 2. But great graphics need great computing. Even now, I don't think a single PC on the planet could run Arma 2 totally maxed, 8xAA, 16xAF, maximum allowed triple monitor resolution, and full viewdistance.

In the future we may see such things, but for now Arma 2 is as beautiful as PC's will allow. You only need to look at screenshots and videos to see how epic the graphics are, and howwell it runs with a good pc.

You may need an ultra pc to run UBER maxed, but to run regular maxed, as in, human, you don't need to work for NASA...

[bangtail 0]

Your PC must have serious issues mate, my PC is very, very far from top spec nowadays, and just look at the results I can pump out.

Even low end PC's will run Arma 2.

I sincerely hope that you didn't run COD on max, and then stick in Arma 2 and assume it would run just as well with all settings highest?

Think of it like when crysis first came out. For it's time, the graphics exceed everything. Just like Arma 2. But great graphics need great computing. Even now, I don't think a single PC on the planet could run Arma 2 totally maxed, 8xAA, 16xAF, maximum allowed triple monitor resolution, and full viewdistance.

In the future we may see such things, but for now Arma 2 is as beautiful as PC's will allow. You only need to look at screenshots and videos to see how epic the graphics are, and howwell it runs with a good pc.

You may need an ultra pc to run UBER maxed, but to run regular maxed, as in, human, you don't need to work for NASA...

I have to agree, you most assuredly do not need a beast to get A2 running at acceptable levels.

[Bulldogs 10]

Nope, I used to run it perfectly fine on medium/high settings on a sub-standard rig and it looked great, but I don't accept anything below perfect, so I upgraded and now it runs with everything on max and it looks really bloody good.

[Whiskey_Tango 10]

the AA is the big performance killer, cut that off and moderate pc's can run pretty well...

[An Fiach 10]

Correct: Neither suck at all. Sure it ain't a beastly machine, but hey, at least it runs most games and simulators just fine without having to dial them down to looking like something a Voodoo2 would've been embarrassed to output.

Most games do not do what ArmA does and thus require far fewer resources. The comment about ArmA's graphics tell us that either you haven't seen them on a proper set up or you are simply trolling. I guess there is the third possibility that you believe the plastic trees you get in Crysis are realistic looking compared to the dull wooden looking trees in ArmA.

[Zipper5 74]

Why do people think ArmA II looks like ass? I think it's one of the most realistic-looking games on the market. No overdone Hollywood effects and all that shit which everyone screams are "realistic".

But perhaps it looks like ass because your apparently crappy PC can't run the game that well, Pulverizer. I currently run it on almost maxed-out settings with a GTX 280, an E8400 3.00GHz and 2GB of RAM. Oh, and Windows XP Professional SP3. That's not really that top-of-the-range by today's standards, is it? I'd say it's somewhere between mid-range and the top.

[galzohar 31]

A lot of games will provide much better models and textures than Arma 2 which will make them look prettier, but the view distance in these games (say, Resident Evil 5 for example) is limited to something between 20 and 50 meters to compensate. Do you really want Arma 2 to be as pretty as, say, RE5 but limit your view distance to even 100 meters? Let's face it, having the ability to see things so far away has its costs. If you consider the fact that Arma 2 gives you such a massive view distance I would say it looks pretty damn good.

[jctrnacty 10]

This game could be bestseller if BIS would postpone the release a few month later.

Bad reviews are responsible for low acceptance by players. Only devoted fans of OFP and Arma bought the game despite the bad reviews including me.

If they´d release it in state of 1.05 patch we could have a game of the year.

I personally was disappointed with singleplayer but after trying MP i was totally addicted(blown). For me it is the best game of 2009. And now with ACE mod, it´s totally amazing game never seen on PC with huge battlefield and amount of units. guys in BIS are geniuses for me.

P.S.:Now we can see that the battle between OF:DR and Arma 2 is won by arma. The guys in CM realized that they were not able to make something similar BIS created. It was up to their abilities. They had to limit the number of AI units to max 64, they had to limit the island to zones, no free walking etc.

Edited February 17, 2010 by jctrnacty

[Bulldogs 10]

I personally was disappointed with singleplayer but after trying MP i was totally blown.

Feels like something is missing here ......

[bangtail 0]

Feels like something is missing here ......

Meh, I didn't get "totally blown" when I played MP, guess he's playing the Euro version ;)

[apoc_reg 10]

I think its just because the game is (on the face of it) to complicated and too "hard core" to use that awful term

I love it, you love it but Joe public? I can see why they may not.

Its also not published by EA, microsoft etc with the budget and platform to make it well known.

Also whats a bit sad is that im guessing dragon rising sold more?? I got it free with my i7 processor but cant even get through the first mission it blows so bad! Arma 2 is such a superior product.